Does personal relevance moderate communication effects? The example of risk communication about 5G-related electromagnetic fields.

Open research Europe · 2025 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 5909

Study snapshot

PublicationOpen research Europe · 2025

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Technological advancements, such as the introduction of the fifth generation technology standard 5G, offer opportunities but also raise concerns. Although no evidence suggests negative effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) within defined exposure limits, authorities responsible for risk communication provide precautionary advice to help citizens reduce personal exposure. However, previous research indicates that precautionary information can increase risk perception and decrease trust. METHODS: This cross-sectional study investigated effects of precautionary information on risk perception and trust in the context of 5G, using large general population samples in Germany and Greece. For the first time, personal relevance was examined as a potential moderating factor, using a novel approach to assess practical and thematic relevance. Participants were first surveyed on their relevance of the topic, then provided with basic information about "RF-EMF and health", and, in the experimental group, with additional precautionary information. Different measures for risk perception and trust followed. We expected higher risk perception and lower trust for the experimental group, and assumed that at lower personal relevance, this effect would be stronger. RESULTS: Contrary to expectations, precautionary information increased just one risk perception measure and only in Germany. The anticipated moderating effect of personal relevance was not found, but relevance itself significantly predicted risk perception, with higher relevance correlating with higher risk perception. Exploratory findings revealed higher risk perception among females compared to males and in Greece compared to Germany. CONCLUSIONS: That there were only few effects of the precautionary information may be linked to the focus on actions to reduce personal exposure when using mobile devices. The results underline the importance of considering personal relevance and demographic factors in risk communication and highlight directions for future research.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionmixed

PopulationGeneral population samples in Germany and Greece

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Precautionary information had limited effects: it increased only one risk perception measure and only in the Germany sample. No moderating effect of personal relevance on the communication effects was found, but higher personal relevance was associated with higher risk perception. Exploratory analyses indicated higher risk perception among females than males and higher risk perception in Greece than Germany.

Outcomes measured

Risk perception (multiple measures)
Trust (in the context of 5G risk communication)
Moderation by personal relevance (practical and thematic relevance)
Sex differences in risk perception (exploratory)
Country differences in risk perception (exploratory)

Limitations

Cross-sectional design
Sample size not reported in abstract
Details of measures and effect sizes not reported in abstract
Findings on sex and country differences described as exploratory

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "5G / mobile devices (risk communication context)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "General population samples in Germany and Greece",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Risk perception (multiple measures)",
    "Trust (in the context of 5G risk communication)",
    "Moderation by personal relevance (practical and thematic relevance)",
    "Sex differences in risk perception (exploratory)",
    "Country differences in risk perception (exploratory)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Precautionary information had limited effects: it increased only one risk perception measure and only in the Germany sample. No moderating effect of personal relevance on the communication effects was found, but higher personal relevance was associated with higher risk perception. Exploratory analyses indicated higher risk perception among females than males and higher risk perception in Greece than Germany.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Cross-sectional design",
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Details of measures and effect sizes not reported in abstract",
    "Findings on sex and country differences described as exploratory"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "RF-EMF",
    "risk communication",
    "precautionary information",
    "risk perception",
    "trust",
    "personal relevance",
    "Germany",
    "Greece"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.78,
      "reason": "Study examines risk communication and precautionary advice in the context of 5G-related RF-EMF."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.12688/openreseurope.19236.2
PubMed: 40242639

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library